Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Eschenbach and McIntyre - Seeing the BEST part of the Satellite Temperature Record?

Posted on 6 November 2011 by Glenn Tamblyn

In a parallel post we have discussed a range of problems with recent posts by Willis Eschenbach at WUWT and Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit. As a part of this we detailed how Eschenbach had presented data from the UAH and RSS Satellite temperature records but seemed to be unaware that there were other analyses by other groups of the same satellite data that painted a very different picture.

In this accompanying post I will go through the work of these other groups and what it means for our understanding of Tropospheric temperature.

In his argument Eschenbach seems to place great store in the satellite data, assuming that it is reliable, and that therefore any discrepancy between satellite records and the surface record must lie with the surface record and that presumably UHI is the likely culprit. He doesn’t seem to consider that there might be problems with the satellite data instead.

In his conclusion Eschenbach states:

I’m happy to discuss other alternative explanations for what we find in Figure 3. I just can’t think of too many…. The satellite data algorithms, on the other hand, has been examined minutely by two very competitive groups, UAH and RSS, in a strongly adversarial scientific manner….. and when corrected the two records agree quite well. It’s possible they’re both wrong, but that doesn’t seem likely.

It seems that Eschenbach’s conclusion rests totally on the satellites being correct so that it must be the surface data at fault. And he says that he is interested in discussing it, which is just as well since it is quite likely that those two records (UAH & RSS) aren’t completely accurate.

Who disputes the UAH and RSS accuracy?  The other three groups that also look at the same data from the same satellites. Eschenbach seems unaware that these groups exist. All Eschenbach has said with this statement "...has been examined minutely by two very competitive groups, UAH and RSS, in a strongly adversarial scientific manner..." is that two groups using essentially the same method to analyse the data have resolved their technical differences about how their method works. This is not the same as saying that this method is correct!

Firstly, some background. A huge part of the complexity associated with generating the satellite temperature records is to do with a range of problems associated with calibration drifts, orbital changes, splicing data together from multiple satellites etc. In this previous post we discussed a range of these issues in more detail. Here we want to focus on several key aspects that Eschenbach doesn’t seem to know about.

The signals used to measure temperatures, received by the multiple Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) on the satellites, are generated by Oxygen molecules at a number of different microwave frequencies that originate to varying degrees from different altitudes in the atmosphere. Each frequency has a characteristic distribution with altitude, with more of the signal coming from certain altitudes and less from others: thus the frequency is useful for sampling that altitude – approximately. These are the so called ‘Weighting Functions’ (WF) for each Channel or Temperature Series.


RSS Weighting Functions

RSS Figure 2. Vertical relative weighting functions for each of the channels discussed on this website. The vertical weighting function describes the relative contribution that microwave radiation emitted by a layer in the atmosphere makes to the total intensity measured above the atmosphere by the satellite.

It is important to understand that the weighting functions are determined by the physics of radiative heat transfer through the atmosphere. They aren’t chosen for their shape. Rather the frequencies are chosen that give the most useful WFs. This graph from RSS shows these WFs. 4 channels labelled TLT (Lower Troposphere), TMT (Mid Troposphere), TTS (Upper Troposphere/Lower Stratosphere) and TLS (Lower Stratosphere).

Notice how the weighting functions stretch across a range of altitudes. TMT & TTS get significant parts of their signal from the lower stratosphere, its boundary being at about 10-12 km. In contrast TLS gets almost all of its signal from the Stratosphere with only around 5% from the Troposphere. The channel labelled TLT is the one used by Eschenbach in his graph of satellite data, both the RSS & UAH analyses of that channel.

What is not clear from the graph above is that these 4 ‘channels’ are actually produced from the data from only 3 sensors. TLS, TTS & TMT are directly calculated from one sensor each - MSU's number 2, 3 & 4 on the older satellites. TLT on the other hand, the one used by Eschenbach, is a ‘synthetic’ channel. It uses additional processing of the data from the TMT readings to try and isolate a signal mainly from the lower troposphere. This was first done by Spencer & Christy at UAH in 1982. In 2005 RSS added a similar synthetic channel. So, channels TLT and TMT come from the same sensor.

But isolating the lower Troposphere was only part of the reason it was created. Look at those sections of the TMT and TTS WFs that stretch up into the lower Stratosphere, and remember that the lower Stratosphere has cooled, more than the Troposphere has warmed. So the TMT & TTS channels have a cooling bias because part of the signal measured by their sensor comes from the cooling lower Stratosphere. So, as far as being measurements of Tropospheric temperature is concerned, it is a physical certainty that TMT & TTS are underestimating the correct values. This is why the TLT synthetic channel was created, to remove this cool bias. But this only applies to the lower Troposphere. We do not have data for the upper Troposphere that doesn't have a cool bias.

So armed with this understanding, what do we see from their analyses. RSS are calculating a trend for TLT of 0.142 C /decade from a TMT trend of 0.087 C /decade. For UAH it is 0.14 and 0.05 respectively. So the processing to extract TLT from TMT is adding a significant amount to the trend. This is the data Eschenbach has based his graph on, although he is only using the land component of the data.

But as we said earlier, three other groups also look at the data. And they report significantly higher values than this.

Fu et al 2004, 2005

In 2004/2005 Qiang Fu, Celeste Johanson et al published an alternative method for removing the Stratospheric bias from the MSU2 (TMT, T2) signal. Since the MSU4 (TLS, T4) signal is predominantly Stratospheric in origin they removed a proportion of the T4 signal from the T2 signal to remove the Stratospheric bias to T2. In order to determine how much to remove, they used radiosonde data to establish a vertical temperature profile for the atmosphere. Then they determine by a least squares regression technique the appropriate weight to give to T2 & T4. Their results are shown below. This calculation was performed in 2004 using data up to 2001. Many of the differences between the RSS & UAH methods had not been resolved at that point. Note particularly how much the RSS and UAH values change between the first and second graph when the Fu method is applied. And the RSS/UAH values here are their TMT values, not TLT.

Fu et al 2004 Trends

Fu et al Weighting Function

Their weighting function has a broader weighting over the entire Troposphere than the TLT products (dashed line) and peaks at a higher altitude so is likely to be more representative of the overall Troposphere. NOAA maintains a comparison temperature record for UAH, RSS & the Fu et al adjustments to them here.

Vinnikov & Grody 

In 2005 Vinnikov & Grody et al (V&G) published another analysis of MSU data trends. Based on their previous work, it used a quite different, frequency & statistically based method to determine the underlying trends for the MSU measurements. They also consider additional issues related to calibration errors. Instead of assuming that there is a linear calibration error associated with the hot target calibration, they allow for this calibration error varying over the satellites orbit due to external factors. They show that they can calculate this effect based just on latitude/longitude variation of the reading without needing to look at any time dependency.  

In their earlier work they had put a figure on trends of 0.22 to 0.26°C/decade. In this work they are estimating 0.20°C/decade. The following graphs show measured Surface, and their calculated TMT trends vs. latitude, and the same values calculated by climate models. The key discrepancies are at the poles with the modelled Northern Surface temps being much higher than measured Northern Surface temps, but modelled and measured Northern Troposphere values agreeing well. Surface temperature products don’t cover the Northern polar region or extrapolate from lower latitude measurements. Southern polar values also disagree but this is commonly ascribed to the effects of the Ozone hole which climate models do not include yet. There is significant agreement at mid and tropical latitudes.

V & G Measured Trends

V & G Modelled Trends

So both these teams have used different approaches to looking at either the calibration and error issues or producing an alternative to the TLT product. But they don’t actually produce a regular time series product because they don’t have the ongoing funding to do so. Just analyses of methods.

Zou et al (Star)

In 2010 Zou et al at NOAA published a new analysis method to produce low level MSU data for TMT. This deals with removing many of the other calibration and inter-satellite correlation issues that UAH & RSS must also tackle but by a very different approach. Their method uses Synchronous Nadir Overpasses – points in time where two satellites are able to observe the same point below. This happens mainly at the Poles. Using this they are able to evaluate most of the onboard & inter-satellite calibration issues since the satellites are receiving the same signal from below at the same time. This method has a lot to recommend it since you can compare apples with apples when comparing two satellites. And this significantly improves how quickly you can establish a basis for comparison between satellites without needing long periods of operation in parallel before you can ‘stitch’ their data together – an issue that plagued the UAH/RSS analyses.

And they are producing on-going temperature series for a range of sensors. The main outstanding area that their analysis does not address is the Stratospheric cooling bias. They are not really trying to do this, instead trying to produce an equivalent to the TMT data series. Their results are shown below. The data from their analysis can be obtained here.

STAR Trends

Monthly anomaly time series and trends for the global mean TMT, TUT (their name for TTS) and TLS – the bottom 3 series. The other trends shown are for higher in the Stratosphere.

The key trend we are interested in is the bottom one: TMT of 0.131°C/decade. In contrast to RSS of 0.087 and UAH of 0.05°/decade, this is significantly higher. The Zou group have plans to produce a TLT product from their TMT data although they have not stated whether the methodology used will be the same as the RSS/UAH method.

So what trend would Zou produce if the TLT calculations were added as well? We can’t know for certain yet, but they must be higher than UAH or RSS simply because their starting point from the TMT trend is so much higher. For a definitive answer we will need to wait for their analysis. But we can possibly make a ballpark estimate.

If we simply take the difference between the TMT and TLT values for RSS & UAH as being indicative of how much the TLT processing adds to the underlying TMT trend, and add them to the Zou teams TMT trend we might get some idea:

RSS Values:     0.131 + 0.142 - 0.087 = 0.186

UAH Values:     0.131 + 0.14 - 0.05 = 0.221

Lower Tropospheric warming of the order of 0.2°C/decade. Putting us into the range suggested by Fu and V&G.

So what can we conclude about the Satellites?

Two teams using essentially the same or similar methods are producing trends of around 0.14°C/decade for TLT. Three other teams using three different methods are producing significantly higher values, suggesting 0.18 to 0.22°C/decade. Can we be certain which is correct? No.

But Eschenbach’s assertion that: ‘It’s possible they’re both wrong (UAH/RSS), but that doesn’t seem likely’ doesn’t sound quite so unlikely at all does it?

And if he is wrong, if the higher values from the other three groups are closer to reality, then the satellite records do agree well with expectations and the surface record, then there is essentially no discrepancy to explain. And the proposition that UHI, Station issues etc are either not significant or are well accounted for in the Surface temperature products looks fairly robust. It looks likely that the 'its station issues, its UHI' argument is on its last legs. That one method is right and three other methods are all wrong.

Perhaps the odds that Eschenbach is correct are 1 in 4 – against!

Eschenbach also seems to think that the expectation from theory is that the air in the Troposphere over the land should show greater warming seems to be a confusion of 2 different ideas. Greater warming is expected at the surface on land compared to the oceans since the oceans can transport heat away from the surface down to the depths. Also greater warming at the land and ocean surface in higher latitudes than at the equator is expected since major processes within the climate system transport heat from the equator to higher latitudes.

This is not to be confused with the so-called Tropospheric Hot-Spot. This is driven by quite different involving evaporation from the oceans and is expected to produce greater warming higher in the Troposphere, partiicularly in the Tropics.

So just for interest, lets go back and look at the diagrams from both Fu et al and Vinnikov & Grody. They both show greater warming in the tropics in the Troposphere. As expected, greater warming in the troposphere compared to the surface.

Now lets take a look at 2 MSU channels we have ignored so far – TTS (or TUT for Zou) and TLS. The Upper Troposphere and the Lower Stratosphere. These are both real, MSU based channels, not a derived channel such as TLT. What do they show as trends? We will look at RSS & Zou since UAH don’t process TTS.

            TTS                 TLS

RSS      0.001               -0.303

Zou      0.044               -0.326

TTS shows almost no trend at all while the next layer up, TLS shows substantial cooling. So is the upper Troposphere not warming at all? Go back and look at the weighting functions from RSS. TLS has most of its signal coming from the lower Stratosphere, with negligible signal coming from the Troposphere, maybe 5%. So this must be real cooling in the Stratosphere. But TTS has around 40% of its signal coming from the lower Stratosphere! And it is showing negligible trend. So… if 40% of its signal is coming from a layer showing strong cooling, doesn’t that mean that … the signal for the other 60% must be coming from a region showing strong warming?

Lets do a rough calculation using RSS and Zou to estimate an upper Troposphere temperature trend (Tut)

For RSS we have:

(0.4 * -0.303) + (0.6 * Tut) = 0.001


Tut = (0.001 -(0.4 * -0.303)) / 0.6 = 0.20°C/decade.

And for Zou we have:

(0.4 * -0.326) + (0.6 * Tut) = 0.044


Tut = (0.044 -(0.4 * -0.326)) / 0.6 = 0.29°C/decade.

Could that possibly be the Upper Tropospheric Hot-Spot?

Surely Eschenbach didn’t miss this as well?

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page | Repost this Article Repost This


Comments 1 to 28:

  1. Glenn:
    You state that the stratosphere is cooling. Would you be so kind as to provide the data source for this?

    Thank you.
    0 0
  2. Camburn, you may wish to examine the 6th (last) figure above. From the original source (link provided above), the caption reads:

    "Bottom three traces: STAR MSU/AMSU Version 2.0, monthly global mean anomaly time series and trends for the layer temperatures of mid-troposphere (TMT),upper-troposphere (TUT), and lower-stratosphere (TLS). The TMT, TUT, and TLS time series are updated every month. Each update adds the monthly-mean, inter-calibrated and well-merged AMSU-A observations from the last month to the dataset. The up-to-date, monthly gridded (2.5 latitude by 2.5 longitude resolution)and global mean MSU/ASMU v2.0 data can be downloaded from here.
    Top three traces: STAR SSU Version 1.0, 5-day averaged global mean anomaly time series and trends for layer temperatures of mid-stratosphere (TMS), upper-stratosphere (TUS), and top-stratosphere (TTS). The well-merged, gridded (2.5 latitude by 2.5 longitude resolution) global dataset for SSU v1.0 can be downloaded from here."
    0 0
  3. Thank you Tom:
    I would like to have noted the step change in temperature of the stratosphere when Mr. Pinatubo errupted. Since that erruption, the strat has not cooled nor warmed but remained flat. I have no explanation for this and have not found a credible source to explain why this is happening.
    0 0
  4. Camburn:

    See fingerprints 8, 9, and 10 in this post for links to scientific literature on stratospheric cooling.
    0 0
  5. Canmburn @3 - you haven't found an explanation for the flattening of stratospheric temperature? Have you looked for one? I think it's pretty common knowledge that ozone recovery has a warming effect on the stratosphere, for example. We discussed the subject briefly here, for example. Composer @4 has identified another post in which we discussed the issue. It's important to note that overall, the stratospheric cooling has been very steep, even moreso that the surface and tropospheric warming.
    0 0
  6. Camburn @3, I see that when it comes to the stratosphere, fake "skeptics" like to go down the up elevator.

    As it happens, volcanic events warm the stratosphere. Mount Pinatubo is responsible for the sudden peak in temperatures (most obvious in the upper stratosphere). A sudden peak, is obviously a poor explanation of a supposed cooling step change.
    0 0
  7. composer99@4:
    The whole atmosphere has contracted because of the drop in the solar wind.

    Yes, I have looked. From this article, and others, it does not seem that ozone has recovered enough to warm the strat.

    NASA article concerning ozone
    0 0

    [DB] "The whole atmosphere has contracted because of the drop in the solar wind."

    Citation, please.  Or is this yet another assertion without evidence from you?

  8. Tom:
    TUS, TMS and TLS were on a very substantial cooling path till Mr. Pinatubo. Since the time of erruption, for whatever the reason, the cooling virtually stopped.

    I don't know why, I have not been able to find out why. I have read numerous reasons as to why, but upon close examintation they didn't make sense, to me at least.

    If you know the reason I am all ears to learn.
    0 0

    [DB] "If you know the reason I am all ears to learn."

    Read the links you were given; questions, if any, may be placed there.

  9. Camburn, please actually read the link I posted @5. Ozone is only one of many factors impacting stratospheric temperatures. Part 2 of 'going down the up the escalator' will also address "skeptic" misconceptions about "step changes" in temperature.
    0 0
  10. Per DB request at 7:

    I thought everyone who reads would know about this:

    Eathers shrinking atomosphere
    0 0

    [DB] Perhaps you should look into what the thermosphere is...and isn't.  Like it's not the stratosphere, for one.  You are being off-topic.  Cease.

  11. dana1981@9:
    Do you have an open source for the paper presented in this link? It is behind a paywall but there may be a copy that you have read?
    0 0

    [DB] Try here.

  12. Unsupported assertions like Camburn's in #7 really need to be highlighted to show that they are as valuable as me suggesting that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden.
    0 0
  13. Thanks skywatcher. Glad that I could be valuable to you as I posted the link, but really did think this was common knowledge.
    0 0
  14. Camburn, you're still not providing a source that supports your statement. From your link:

    "An increase in CO2 could be one reason why a layer of Earth's upper atmosphere went through its biggest contraction in 43 years."

    I'd also be intrigued as to how the mysterious Dr Svelsgaard could attribute a 30-year declining trend (or any 'plateau' since Pinatubo) to a solar cycle which began in 2008?
    0 0
  15. Camburn, you posted a source just as I commented above, thanks for the source but it does not support your statement.
    0 0
  16. Camburn

    Note the series from TTS, TUS & TMS at the top of the Star graphic - my apologies for the poor quality, the colour scheme used by Star & shrinking it to fit the SkS format has reduced its clarity. You could look at the Star original for more detail. What it shows is that cooling over much of the stratosphere is more clear-cut than in the lower stratosphere with Volcanic eruptions having less of an impact.

    But that is a secondary point. The key issue is that in considering what the temperature anomaly for the Upper Troposphere is at any point in time, we need to take the corresponding anomaly in the lower Stratosphere into account. How the stratosphere came to have that value isn't relevent to interpreting what is happening in the Upper Troposphere.
    0 0
  17. Camburn @8.

    Looking at the TTS, TUS & TMS cuarves after the peak one tends to see the volcanic peak, then a dip below the trend line that recovers after several years. Suggesting that the impact of the eruptions on the stratosphere takes longer to fade away than in the Troposphere. This isn't too surprising at one level. If a major event can inject some sort of change into the Stratosphere the significant mixing timne delay between Troposphere and Stratosphere could easily mean that 'clearing' the effect could take a number of years.

    As to what might be 'injected' into the stratosphere, I can speculate about 2 possibilities: Water vapour is injected into the stratosphere where it might have a disproportionate impact. Or, as a result of some unknown process, the eruption might have an impact on the availability of OH Radicals in the Stratosphere and thus the conversion of Methane to H2O. Both seem at least possible, but beyond that these are just conjectures on my part.
    0 0
  18. Thank you Glenn @ 16&17. I have read both your explanations as reasons as well as others.
    It is clearly evident that a large erruption has a long term influence on the stratosphere. The question becomes how long does this influence last. We can observe that in the past 20 years the temperature has been stable, within error bars.
    0 0
  19. Camburn: "why a layer of Earth's upper atmosphere went through its biggest contraction in 43 years."

    Or it could be based on this observation from 2009:

    Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun's brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other significant side-effects: Earth's upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less "puffed up."
    0 0
  20. Camburn @18, your post continues the off topic discussion you seem intent on pursuing. If you wish to take the discussion to where it is on topic, I'll happily participate. As it stands I will merely observe that you draw your conclusion on the sole basis that you do not accept other theories. You have in no way shown the evidence supports it.

    If you want to give your reasons why the gradual recovery of ozone from the destruction due to sulfuric aerosols from a volcano (the only long term effect of volcanoes on the stratosphere) is a significant warming factor, while the gradual recovery of ozone from destruction by anthropogenic chlorofluorocarbons is not in an appropriate thread, I'll be all ears. In the mean time, could you keep on topic in this thread.
    0 0
  21. GHG induced stratospheric cooling is most prevalent at about 50 km, roughly corresponding to the top line (TTS) on the STAR graph. Unfortunately, the SSU instruments failed in 2005 so there is no data since then. As others have said, the cooling was reduced after CFCs were phased out in the mid '90s. Also, the higher altitudes have larger solar components, so the solar cycle tends to interfere with any eyeball-based analysis.
    0 0
  22. Trying to ignore the off-topic parts of Camburn's points, I'll concentrate on this statement from #18:
    "We can observe that in the past 20 years the [stratospheric] temperature has been stable, within error bars."

    With the same data, the strong long-term decline in mind, and the closeness of the data to the fitted declining trends, this sentence can equally be restated as: "We can observe that in the past 20 years the [stratospheric] temperature has been declining, within error bars."

    Camburn is going up the down escalator here.
    0 0
  23. Returning to Camburn's original point @3, I would like to note that the trends for the TLS channel are:

    From 1978 to Dec 2009: -0.327 degrees per decade (from the graph above)
    From Jan 1999 to Dec 2009: -0.165 degrees per decade.

    I would like to note that:

    a) While the trend has approximately halved (reasons for which are off topic) it has certainly not "stopped" as claimed by Camburn;

    b) The period of the 1999-2009 trend is probably too short to be statistically significant; and

    c) The trend is still of the same approximate magnitude as tropospheric trends, though opposite in sign.

    Therefore any supposition that decreases in stratospheric temperatures have ceased to cause the TMT channel to underestimate increases in tropospheric temperatures is entirely unwarranted.

    TLS data is available here, under the MSU_AMSU_v.2 folder, and the monthly folder:
    0 0
  24. I am having trouble understanding how the MSU works.  Let me begin with what I think I do know, and let’s see if that’s OK.

    The microwave radiometer measures radiance (intensity) of O2 which depends on the ambient temperature at which the molecule finds itself. Normally selection rules say a homonuclear diatomic molecule (like N2) with no electric dipole is transparent to microwave.  OTOH, O2 is paramagnetic so the radiation can couple to the molecule’s magnetic dipole, hence leading to absorption and emission.  The radiometer has several channels which detect microwave intensity with a voltage response that is digitized and stored.

    Each channel has a voltage vs. atmospheric pressure curve that maximizes at a specific pressure and so specific altitude which is different for each channel.  Your article is calling these the relative weighting function.     

    Here’s the question. What is different about what each channel is measuring, and how do that parameter and the voltage allow specification of the temperature and pressure? I assume each channel is somehow tuned to a different frequency by a few wavenumbers, but I’m not a spectroscopist and haven’t been able to deduce the answer. I haven’t been able to find it on the web either – everything stops short of that kind of detail.   

    0 0
  25. To clarify what I don't know a little further, I am aware of pressure broadening. But even if each channel were measuring line shapes (peak widths), how would you be able to separate different band widths at a given frequency? Perhaps part of the answer is that different rotational transitions might have very different intensities as a function of pressure, but wouldn't they as a function of temperature at the same time? How does all of this get resolved?

    0 0
  26. tcflood @24/25, the following is the microwave absorption spectrum of oxygen at different altitudes:

    The absorption spectrum is a a function of absorptivity, which equal emissivity, so the above graph also tells you the relative strength of emission of O2 if all levels were at a constant temperature.

    If you have an instrument on a satellite examining the emissions at 69 Ghz, you would know that it came almost entirely from the lower 3 km of the atmosphere. You know this because the lower 3 km will emit at that frequency, but the levels above that will neither absorb nor emit at that frequency (or at least, not significantly).  In contrast, if you sampled at 60.5 GHz, you would know that the radiation comes mostly from 20 Km or above.  That would be because O2 at those levels emitt microwaves, but also because they strongly absorb microwaves, thus filtering out the lower levels.  By carefull selection of frequency, you can thus choose among a range of emission weights with altitude, which will be governed by the radiative transfer properties at that altitude as modulated by pressure.

    If you have a spare $130, this book will give you all the information you desire (I suspect).  Unfortunately, I could not find the original proposal for the MSU or AMSU instruments by google search.  Should you be able to do so, they undoubtedly be able to give you far more detailed information.

    0 0
  27. Additional to the above, Chris Colose (I think) once posted a very interesting blog showing satellite images at different frequencies showing clearly how different altitudes became successively revealed.  Very interesting inrelation to tcflood's question.  I have tried to find it since with no success.  If anybody could direct me to it, or the original data he used, I would greatly appreciate it.

    0 0
  28. Tom Curtis,

    Thank you for taking the time to give this detailed answer. It's a big help.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website



(free to republish)



The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps


© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us